|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ecocks
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 899
Location: Gdansk, Poland
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hey Simon, not sure a conversation is possible with the peanut gallery but seriously if you are up here or we could have more of a friendly, focused conversation on the topic, I'm game and good for the first round. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iknowwhatiamtalkingabout
Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecocks wrote: |
| NilSatis82 wrote: |
| ecocks wrote: |
Probably at least as much as the Viet Cong, the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, and a few other folks.
All of those who keep crying that there is NO HOPE against the US military should go talk to the Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis sometime. The US military has tremendous potential to destroy production capacity and formations of armed personnel. Against a few million, widely dispersed insurgents, while dealing with desertions and command failures, as well as all the hardware in the hands of every state and many regions, not so much. |
The original question was about developed countries. People generally rise up against their governments (or occupying forces) when all else fails and they have little hope. Do you think that the same could be said about US citizens - can you really envisage a situation where the population has so little to lose that armies of people will march upon Washington with their hand guns and assault rifles?
It was precisely because there wasn't/isn't any democracy and workable system of law in the countries you mentioned that armed conflicts can happen. Thankfully, the same can't be said in the west, hence our lives are relatively peaceful compared with those who live in Syria, for example.
If this wasn't the case, then why aren't there civil wars in Europe anymore? How many civil wars have there ever been in functioning democracies?
Back to the original question though, why is America so different from almost every other developed country in the world, in that its citizens need arming in order to protect themselves from the government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership |
You ask about a half dozen questions and I am a bit pressed for time this morning but will respond as best I can.
Why is it that so many of you are so blithely ignoring the fact that during the run-up to the "arguably most developed nation" in the world, we were armed? Simply we wish to maintain the status quo. Most of you seem to overlook this fact.
Do you not remember that Hitler was elected to office? Stalin and his troika rode a platform of populist revolutionary committee support into office, widely hailed by the people. Mao was adored by his population as a savior. They all proclaimed that peace and prosperity were in sight, no one need worry since the state would see to their protection and war was something for the government to worry about, not the people. Then the concentration camps, gulags, re-education centers and rehabilitation programs began for those asking too many questions, labor assignments were made based upon political reliability IN ADDITION to test scores, people began disappearing, informers were placed through the population, the body count went up and the next thing you know, there's a few million dead bodies being discovered in forests and mass grave sites in the middle of nowhere. This process has been repeated through history and ALWAYS there was the claim that we are beyond this now, we are civilized, NOBODY would think of doing that to their own citizens.
Do Germans look back and marvel that nobody thought it could happen to them? They said they did. What about those 20 million dead Russians purged by Stalin? Do you think things turned out "fair" for them? Thousands of Chinese have found the courage to protest population restrictions and how do things turn out for Chinese dissidents? Was the last thought of this couple across the courtyard, "Gee, it's a good thing I didn't have a gun, someone might have gotten hurt?" Would that have been before or after the 18-month was killed you think?
March on Washington? Possible, but first there will be some isolated individual incidents, then some Ruby Ridge/Waco-sized events, followed by state-level disobedience and the realization that 90 million gun-owners, leavened by millions of veterans and LE personnel are reaching a point of intolerance.
Those of you who talk of the ballot box need to take a good long look at the percentages of the population falling on each side of the divides. This is not 11, 17 or even 23 percent of the people. This is 41, 45, 47 percent owning guns and another 20+% who are not agreeing that the Constitution allows the disarmament even if they personally chose not to own firearms.
Some love to paint a scenario of 7-8 guys in the woods, living in brush shacks off of rabbit stew. Instead, you need to look at those millions of gun-owners, state inventories of combat units (current armor, aircraft and artillery) along with the tens of thousands of veterans, currently-serving troops and law enforcement personnel who reflect the same percentages of dissatisfaction in the direction of government. Once someone says to drone-strike Aunt Sally's house things will probably take a significant turn. One side or the other is certainly in for a shock.
Why aren't there civil wars in Europe? LOL, perhaps you should ask the Greeks, the French and the Brits who have had days of riots, arson, looting and the like. Your countries may not have the same degree of self-initiative and determination as the US. I don't mind you having an opinion, even welcome sitting down and chatting about it but if you are going to try to understand it then you have to set aside your incredulity that at our beliefs much as we need to do with regard to yours.
Those non-Americans hopefully enjoy their country and the laws they live under, having found a happy place in the world. Your examples though are no more relevant to us than ours are to you based on how these discussions tend to go. I respect honest opinions. However, starting in with the stereotypes rather than the facts, the judgments rather than the considerations and the insults rather than the topic-centered response get the discussion NOWHERE. |
This is a really long way of saying nothing at all.
Your comparisons with Stalin and Hitler are frankly ridiculous. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history knows the circumstances of their coming to power. To say the USA is at risk of something like that is laughable. The reverence with which you hold your constitution make it impossible.
Your ownership of guns does not come into it. They've got nuclear weapons and tanks and battleships and planes and drones and whatever else. If they want to take the fight to the population (which they won't) then your guns aren't going to discourage them. To think they will is quite incredible.
Just say you like guns and that's that. People can respect that. The idea that you NEED guns is laughable and supported by no credible explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecocks
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 899
Location: Gdansk, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And I find nothing credible in your response either so that's that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iknowwhatiamtalkingabout
Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecocks wrote: |
| And I find nothing credible in your response either so that's that. |
With respect, you've said nothing of any substance to support your view. Beyond saying it's your right to have guns (which nobody disputes), you've offered no real reasons why.
I think it's fair to look for something more recent than the constitution, or to really wonder what the benefit of having guns in the face of the most advanced military of all time is.
You haven't addressed either of those points, so I don't think you've earned the right to be so dismissive of my criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NilSatis82
Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecocks wrote: |
| NilSatis82 wrote: |
| ecocks wrote: |
Probably at least as much as the Viet Cong, the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, and a few other folks.
All of those who keep crying that there is NO HOPE against the US military should go talk to the Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis sometime. The US military has tremendous potential to destroy production capacity and formations of armed personnel. Against a few million, widely dispersed insurgents, while dealing with desertions and command failures, as well as all the hardware in the hands of every state and many regions, not so much. |
The original question was about developed countries. People generally rise up against their governments (or occupying forces) when all else fails and they have little hope. Do you think that the same could be said about US citizens - can you really envisage a situation where the population has so little to lose that armies of people will march upon Washington with their hand guns and assault rifles?
It was precisely because there wasn't/isn't any democracy and workable system of law in the countries you mentioned that armed conflicts can happen. Thankfully, the same can't be said in the west, hence our lives are relatively peaceful compared with those who live in Syria, for example.
If this wasn't the case, then why aren't there civil wars in Europe anymore? How many civil wars have there ever been in functioning democracies?
Back to the original question though, why is America so different from almost every other developed country in the world, in that its citizens need arming in order to protect themselves from the government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership |
You ask about a half dozen questions and I am a bit pressed for time this morning but will respond as best I can.
Why is it that so many of you are so blithely ignoring the fact that during the run-up to the "arguably most developed nation" in the world, we were armed? Simply we wish to maintain the status quo. Most of you seem to overlook this fact. |
Yeah, but that was over 200 years ago, haven't you moved on a bit?
| ecocks wrote: |
Do you not remember that Hitler was elected to office? Stalin and his troika rode a platform of populist revolutionary committee support into office, widely hailed by the people. Mao was adored by his population as a savior. They all proclaimed that peace and prosperity were in sight, no one need worry since the state would see to their protection and war was something for the government to worry about, not the people. Then the concentration camps, gulags, re-education centers and rehabilitation programs began for those asking too many questions, labor assignments were made based upon political reliability IN ADDITION to test scores, people began disappearing, informers were placed through the population, the body count went up and the next thing you know, there's a few million dead bodies being discovered in forests and mass grave sites in the middle of nowhere. This process has been repeated through history and ALWAYS there was the claim that we are beyond this now, we are civilized, NOBODY would think of doing that to their own citizens.
Do Germans look back and marvel that nobody thought it could happen to them? They said they did. What about those 20 million dead Russians purged by Stalin? Do you think things turned out "fair" for them? Thousands of Chinese have found the courage to protest population restrictions and how do things turn out for Chinese dissidents? Was the last thought of this couple across the courtyard, "Gee, it's a good thing I didn't have a gun, someone might have gotten hurt?" Would that have been before or after the 18-month was killed you think? |
Neither China or the Soviet Union were functioning democracies, and it is arguable if Germany was what most people would consider a functioning democracy when Hitler was elected to power. Anyhow, it certainly wasn't when he started killing millions of people. Plus, as horrific as WWII and the Holocaust were, neither amounted to a civil war, so I'm afraid your arguments don't stack up.
| ecocks wrote: |
| March on Washington? Possible, but first there will be some isolated individual incidents, then some Ruby Ridge/Waco-sized events, followed by state-level disobedience and the realization that 90 million gun-owners, leavened by millions of veterans and LE personnel are reaching a point of intolerance. |
I personally think that this could only ever happen in a Hollywood film, but each to their own.
| ecocks wrote: |
Those of you who talk of the ballot box need to take a good long look at the percentages of the population falling on each side of the divides. This is not 11, 17 or even 23 percent of the people. This is 41, 45, 47 percent owning guns and another 20+% who are not agreeing that the Constitution allows the disarmament even if they personally chose not to own firearms.
Some love to paint a scenario of 7-8 guys in the woods, living in brush shacks off of rabbit stew. Instead, you need to look at those millions of gun-owners, state inventories of combat units (current armor, aircraft and artillery) along with the tens of thousands of veterans, currently-serving troops and law enforcement personnel who reflect the same percentages of dissatisfaction in the direction of government. Once someone says to drone-strike Aunt Sally's house things will probably take a significant turn. One side or the other is certainly in for a shock. |
Yes, but how many of these people own a gun to protect themselves, their family and their property and how many of these people own a gun in preparation to rise up in armed protest against the government? I would hazard a guess that armed struggle against the US government isn't at the forefront of the average gun owning citizen's mind when they choose to buy a gun.
| ecocks wrote: |
| Why aren't there civil wars in Europe? LOL, perhaps you should ask the Greeks, the French and the Brits who have had days of riots, arson, looting and the like. Your countries may not have the same degree of self-initiative and determination as the US. I don't mind you having an opinion, even welcome sitting down and chatting about it but if you are going to try to understand it then you have to set aside your incredulity that at our beliefs much as we need to do with regard to yours. |
Sorry, but the odd riot here and there and a bit of looting hardly constitutes civil war. The people of Syria, DRC and Northern Mali to name but a few could probably give you a better idea.
| ecocks wrote: |
| Those non-Americans hopefully enjoy their country and the laws they live under, having found a happy place in the world. Your examples though are no more relevant to us than ours are to you based on how these discussions tend to go. I respect honest opinions. However, starting in with the stereotypes rather than the facts, the judgments rather than the considerations and the insults rather than the topic-centered response get the discussion NOWHERE. |
If this was directed at me, then you've either misread my previous post or you are extremely sensitive. At no point have I sought to stereotype Americans or thrown insults at anyone. In fact, apart from being called arrogant (very mild insult IMO), neither has anyone else who has disagreed with you. In fact, you are the one who has just referred to those who disagree with you as peanuts and have frequently failed to answer the questions posed to you in a sensible and coherent manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecocks
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 899
Location: Gdansk, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iknowwhatiamtalkingabout wrote: |
| ecocks wrote: |
| And I find nothing credible in your response either so that's that. |
With respect, you've said nothing of any substance to support your view. Beyond saying it's your right to have guns (which nobody disputes), you've offered no real reasons why.
I think it's fair to look for something more recent than the constitution, or to really wonder what the benefit of having guns in the face of the most advanced military of all time is.
You haven't addressed either of those points, so I don't think you've earned the right to be so dismissive of my criticism. |
Oh really?
Well from my perspective you continue to repeatedly make the mistake that generations have made believing that you/mankind have reached some higher plane of existence and that people are magically going to abandon their nature. Simply, it didn't work for Hitler, Stalin, Pol, Mao or Aziz so we don't expect it to work for you.
For some odd reason though, you believe that it's okay for you to ignore thousands of years of experience based upon some foolish belief that this nature has changed. When this is pointed out to you, it's perfectly fine for you to be dismissive of that experiential data which shows the most likely outcome but woe be to anyone who disagrees.
Instead you want to talk about WW2 while dismissing our social contract [that would be the Constitution] for some odd reason.
Yes, I brought it up. However the context was that the US spent billions of 1940's and 50's dollars rebuilding a continent rather than investing it in ourselves to cement our position as a superpower even further. It was the right thing to do for our allies and at least your leaders if not your masses had an inkling this was an option rather than an imperative. That was my only point other than possibly highlighting that our investment allowed those countries involved to cut decades off their time rebuilding their economies and industries to enable a standard of living and social development far beyond any [countries] as devastated by war in the past. You chose to apply the label arrogance to a simple statement of fact when I was expressing what we see as reality. Get off your defensiveness about who did what to whom. Nobody said anything about you not pulling your weight or who won the war or who was most important....but you sure hoped you could spin it that way.
Really though, it makes little difference to me since the Constitution isn't going to change whatever executive orders are attempted and I expect our country t still be around long after the dinosaurs attempting socialistic variants are long gone.
My sole purpose was to address those who SAY they wish a dialog/discussion to help them understand the American mindset yet, when confronted with it, are lost to the point of simple name-calling and asserting that someone is ________ (fill in the blank) rather than pull their head out and talking about differing views.
Hold your breath for a long-term change and see where it gets you then.
Time will tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecocks
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 899
Location: Gdansk, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NilSatis82 wrote: |
If this was directed at me, then you've either misread my previous post or you are extremely sensitive. At no point have I sought to stereotype Americans or thrown insults at anyone. In fact, apart from being called arrogant (very mild insult IMO), neither has anyone else who has disagreed with you. In fact, you are the one who has just referred to those who disagree with you as peanuts and have frequently failed to answer the questions posed to you in a sensible and coherent manner. |
Really, you flatter yourself. It was a face value comment to those whose citizenship is not American, no more, no less.
You and the poster above can attempt to dismiss the positions of Americans whenever they challenge your beliefs and see where you are next year.
Enjoy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NilSatis82
Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecocks wrote: |
| NilSatis82 wrote: |
If this was directed at me, then you've either misread my previous post or you are extremely sensitive. At no point have I sought to stereotype Americans or thrown insults at anyone. In fact, apart from being called arrogant (very mild insult IMO), neither has anyone else who has disagreed with you. In fact, you are the one who has just referred to those who disagree with you as peanuts and have frequently failed to answer the questions posed to you in a sensible and coherent manner. |
Really, you flatter yourself. It was a face value comment to those whose citizenship is not American, no more, no less. |
Fine, but my point was that nobody (me or anyone else who disagrees with you) has resorted to stereotyping Americans or hurling insults (only you've done this). Also, you are the one who fails to answer the questions that have been put to you with any logical reasoning, not anyone else. Hence, your comment was completely misplaced.
| ecocks wrote: |
You and the poster above can attempt to dismiss the positions of Americans whenever they challenge your beliefs and see where you are next year.
Enjoy. |
I have only challenged your belief about needing guns to keep the government in check, not those of other Americans. In fact, I actually said that I doubted whether most Americans gun owners were indeed serial fantasists who dream about bringing down their own government with armed rebellion. I was being kinder about your fellow Americans than you were! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecocks
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 899
Location: Gdansk, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great, like I said, hold your breath for a significant change then.
Simon, shout when you come this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NilSatis82
Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecocks wrote: |
| Great, like I said, hold your breath for a significant change then. |
What will the change involve? I'm quite curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iknowwhatiamtalkingabout
Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecocks wrote: |
| iknowwhatiamtalkingabout wrote: |
| ecocks wrote: |
| And I find nothing credible in your response either so that's that. |
With respect, you've said nothing of any substance to support your view. Beyond saying it's your right to have guns (which nobody disputes), you've offered no real reasons why.
I think it's fair to look for something more recent than the constitution, or to really wonder what the benefit of having guns in the face of the most advanced military of all time is.
You haven't addressed either of those points, so I don't think you've earned the right to be so dismissive of my criticism. |
Oh really?
Well from my perspective you continue to repeatedly make the mistake that generations have made believing that you/mankind have reached some higher plane of existence and that people are magically going to abandon their nature. Simply, it didn't work for Hitler, Stalin, Pol, Mao or Aziz so we don't expect it to work for you.
For some odd reason though, you believe that it's okay for you to ignore thousands of years of experience based upon some foolish belief that this nature has changed. When this is pointed out to you, it's perfectly fine for you to be dismissive of that experiential data which shows the most likely outcome but woe be to anyone who disagrees.
Instead you want to talk about WW2 while dismissing our social contract [that would be the Constitution] for some odd reason.
Yes, I brought it up. However the context was that the US spent billions of 1940's and 50's dollars rebuilding a continent rather than investing it in ourselves to cement our position as a superpower even further. It was the right thing to do for our allies and at least your leaders if not your masses had an inkling this was an option rather than an imperative. That was my only point other than possibly highlighting that our investment allowed those countries involved to cut decades off their time rebuilding their economies and industries to enable a standard of living and social development far beyond any [countries] as devastated by war in the past. You chose to apply the label arrogance to a simple statement of fact when I was expressing what we see as reality. Get off your defensiveness about who did what to whom. Nobody said anything about you not pulling your weight or who won the war or who was most important....but you sure hoped you could spin it that way.
Really though, it makes little difference to me since the Constitution isn't going to change whatever executive orders are attempted and I expect our country t still be around long after the dinosaurs attempting socialistic variants are long gone.
My sole purpose was to address those who SAY they wish a dialog/discussion to help them understand the American mindset yet, when confronted with it, are lost to the point of simple name-calling and asserting that someone is ________ (fill in the blank) rather than pull their head out and talking about differing views.
Hold your breath for a long-term change and see where it gets you then.
Time will tell. |
Again, lots of waffle, but you don't once deal with the question of why you NEED guns to protect yourself from the government or HOW these guns will be of any use against today's American military.
The sheer volume of waffle confirms that you don't have an answer to these things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billbob
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LOL. This board also went off-topic on page 2! All about money and discussing life values. What about the school? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecocks
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 899
Location: Gdansk, Poland
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bilbob:
You seem obsessed with staying on track this morning.
If you are reading older threads you'll notice it generally starts when the subject of life in a location versus salary offered comes up. From there it begins to spin into either a discussion/argument on the merits of one location versus another OR, as in this case, diverges into philosophies.
As for the rest, it's human nature that as soon as people cannot understand a concept they begin challenging the individual poster rather than staying on track by discussing the topic.
When it becomes clear that the people are solidly entrenched in their positions (in this case gun ownership/) the conversation dies....
until someone comes along and restarts it or a new thread fulfills the need for discussion.
Aside from gun ownership/political issues it happens with teaching methodologies, lifestyles, relationships, law, most any process we live through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dragonpiwo
Joined: 04 Mar 2013
Posts: 1650
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bell pay crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
delphian-domine
Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Posts: 674
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dragonpiwo wrote: |
| Bell pay crap. |
You're out of the game a long time, because if you were, you'd know that Program Bell can actually pay quite well in Poznan. They don't pay newbies a huge amount, sure - but again why should they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
